Subject: [NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo and draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:47:28 -0400

draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo and draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp are related
closely enough that I will have the IESG consider both documents on one
ballot.  That being the case, they will be evaluated and last-called as a
pair.  Here are my pre-last call evaluation comments:

draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo
Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included.  Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)", [NNTP-COMMON] with "RFC 2980", and [SASL] with "(SASL)".

Section 8.2: The UTF-8 reference should be normative.  It's cited as a MUST
in section 2.3.2. 

draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp
Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included.  Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)" and [TLS] with "(TLS)".

Both documents:
Please consider updating the [ABNF] reference to use
draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead of RFC 2234.  The IESG recently
approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234.  It's in the RFC
Editor queue.

None of these are significant.  I will start the last call.  Please consider
these in the same context as any other comments received during the last
call process.

These are all VERY good looking specifications!  I know it has taken a
while, but the group has done some good work.

-Scott-